Arismendis v. State.
| Decision Date | 19 December 1900 |
| Parties | ARISMENDIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Cameron county; Stanley Welch, Judge.
Manuel Arismendis was convicted of cattle theft, and appeals. Reversed.
John Bartlett, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of theft of cattle.
It is urged for reversal that the court failed to instruct the jury with reference to the law of alibi. This was the only defense interposed by appellant. The state's theory was that appellant was seen at night, with others, in possession of the alleged stolen animals. His testimony denies his presence and possession, and other evidence shows or tends to show he was at a certain point in the city of Brownsville at that time. Whether the latter testimony is sufficiently pointed to designate that particular night or not is involved in doubt; but defendant's testimony is pointed that he was not present at the time stated by the state's witnesses, was not in possession of the property, and knew nothing about it. It is not necessary to go into a detailed statement of the facts bearing upon this question. The charge is excepted to in motion for new trial. This being his defense, the law applicable to it should have been given; and, because it was not, the judgment must be reversed. In view of another trial, we call the court's attention to the fact that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. The only evidence relied upon to connect defendant with the taking was that he, with others, was found in possession of the property. There is no testimony showing he was the taker, outside the fact that he was seen in possession of the animals at night, and they were subsequently shown to have been taken from the pasture of the alleged owner. The parties were not seen in possession in the pasture, but at a point some distance from it. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Glass
... ... Rep. 209; State v. King, 174 Mo ... 647, 74 S.W. 627, 15 Am. Crim. Rep. 616; State v ... MacQueen, 69 N.J.L. 522, 55 A. 1006; State v ... Gadsden, 70 S.C. 430, 50 S.E. 16; 2 Thomp. Trials, ... § 2287; State v. Thornton, 10 S.D. 349, 41 ... L.R.A. 530, 73 N.W. 196; Arismendis v. State, Tex. Crim ... Rep. , 60 S.W. 47; Smith v. State, Tex. Crim. Rep. , 50 ... S.W. 362 ... The ... rule is that where defendant's evidence tends to prove an ... alibi, a refusal to instruct specially on the law of alibi is ... error. 14 Century Dig. col. 2574, § ... ...
-
State v. Friend
...is an alibi, even though request for such instruction is not made. Holland v. State, 17 Ga. App. 311, 86 S. E. 739. See Arismendis v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 60 S. W. 47. But it seems to be the rule that an omission to charge with reference to an alibi is not reversible error, unless the char......
-
State v. Friend
...is an alibi, even though request for such instruction is not made. Holland v. State, 17 Ga.App. 311, 86 S.E. 739. See Arismendis v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 60 S.W. 47. But it seems to be the rule that an omission to charge with reference to an alibi is not reversible error, unless the charge ......
-
State v. Dexter Friend.
...defense is an alibi, even though request for such instruction is not made. Holland v. State, 86 S. E. (Georgia) 739. See Arismendis v. State (Tex. Cr. App.), 60 S. W. 47. But it seems to be the rule that an omission to charge with reference to an alibi is not reversible error unless the cha......